Thanks folks. I plan to accept this as-is later today
unless someone proposes better text that gets a better
reaction.
S
On 27/09/16 03:30, John R Levine wrote:
> tl;dr the proposed correction does the right thing
>
>
>>> Section: 3.5
>>>
>>> Original Text
>>> -
>>> x-sig-q-tag-arg
tl;dr the proposed correction does the right thing
Section: 3.5
Original Text
-
x-sig-q-tag-args = qp-hdr-value
Corrected Text
--
x-sig-q-tag-args = dkim-quoted-printable ; with ":" encoded
... Section 2.10 shows:
qp-hdr-value= dkim-quoted-printable;
On 9/26/2016 12:15 PM, RFC Errata System wrote:
Section: 3.5
Original Text
-
x-sig-q-tag-args = qp-hdr-value
Corrected Text
--
x-sig-q-tag-args = dkim-quoted-printable ; with ":" encoded
Notes
-
sig-q-tag-methods are ":"-separated in sig-q-tag, so ":" shouldn't be
That looks correct to me. Barry or Dave?
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Stephen Farrell
wrote:
>
> If someone familiar with the dkim abnf could comment I'd be
> happy to approve/reject this as appropriate.
>
> S
>
> On 26/09/16 20:15, RFC Errata System wrote:
> > The following errata report h
If someone familiar with the dkim abnf could comment I'd be
happy to approve/reject this as appropriate.
S
On 26/09/16 20:15, RFC Errata System wrote:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6376,
> "DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures".
>
>
